Thursday, December 27, 2012

A Case to Ban High Capacity Magazines and Assault Weapons by a Conservative Judge

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and
bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture,
importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and
high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep
them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the
market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm
for it.I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was
appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as
someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC,
and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who
thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs.
Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to
possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as
someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory
state.

Sounds pretty simple to me, especially the "with some teeth in it this time."

42 comments:

The idea would be a pointless violation of the rights of law-abiding gun owners and would cost them a lot of money to replace their standard capacity magazines with neutered versions. The law would achieve nothing useful. Criminals would ignore it, but more importantly, many gun owners would be turned into criminals by a ridiculous and unjust law.

An unjust law is no law at all. First they came for the high capacity magazines, then they came for the semiautomatic rifles...

I note that you don't even address the money that gun owners would lose, thanks to the confiscation program. So let's see: property rights, right of self defense, right to own guns, right to due process--anything else you don't care about?

Mike, If we are responsible for our own choices, and if you are too blame for deciding to ignore a law, whether it be old or new, why infringe on the rights of current law abiding citizens, because an individual chose to ignore the law and commit crimes that are far more despicable than simply having a firearm that you don't like? You claim that people are responsible for their choices. If they break the law then they are to blame, how is it guns, inanimate objects, responsible for breaking the law? Or are firearms somehow magically self aware and able to choose to kill people? I have seen the brutality and the cunning of people who have a mind for murder and violence, and i can assure you, denying the people the right to self defense will not help.

By the way, Dog Gone, are you ever going to explain how the handgun on in my nightstand is a danger to any innocent person when I'm sleeping next to it? Is the gun going to jump up and start shooting on its own?

This "statist" in question is one of the few who are able to present a compelling reason to be allowed access to lethal arms.

As I have stated earlier, the widespread and rampant armament of the general populace infringes on the rights of which you speak (life, property, and the use of due process when inflicting death). It would constitute a dereliction of duty for the State to continually allow mere citizens possess and proliferate lethal arms. Or will you claim that the government bears no interest in the preservation of human life?

Fuck you. I've owned my weapons for over twenty years, go ban your golf clubs, football games, luxury boats and anything else you might like and see how you feel. This is america founded and secured on firearms if you dont like it move to Austraila or England!

True, the 'gunsucks' would load their own but, further, you do realize the massive stockpiles of ammo that they already have amassed, don't you?

It would be interesting to know just how many rounds/clips of ammunition the 'average gunsuck' has stockpiled.

A further question might be: Why do they 'believe' that they need such a massive amount? Do they really 'believe' that it will keep them safe from the Federal Government in that fantasy wherein the 'government comes for their guns!'

What's my opinion on this? First: so this judge is a republican. That, combined with this editorial, just tell me that he is one of the conservatives that leans in a strongly authoritarian direction. A pitfall that conservative judges fall into as much or more than liberal ones. Republican Appointees rarely have enough respect for the Fourth amendment, so why should they necessarily respect the Second?

As for the content of his proposal, an assault weapons ban coupled with confiscation, as this judge proposes, would be a massive violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments. A large number of gun owners would not comply with such a law, so the government would have to send men with guns to take their property. This would not end well for anyone involved.

So what do I think? I think this ignorant putz of a judge is, like so many judges, high on the aroma of his own power, and he just proposed a policy that would be the casus belli in a second civil war. Thank you for your suggestion judge, but no thanks.

I don't think sending "men with guns to take their property" is going to happen. Compliance could be voluntary. The many who don't cooperate will be equally matched by those who do, more or less. The ones who keep their contraband magazines will not be able to sell them or trade them away so easily. They'll be less available to the lunatics than ever before, even during the other AWB. The results would be good.

The only thing that the other AWB made it hard to get were 12 round magazines for my .45 cal. carry gun because it was fairly new on the market. There were so many grandfathered magazines for AR's and AK's that you could still get them for 15 bucks, rather than the 12 dollar average they were at this fall.

There are Billions of these in circulation. Even if 3/4 of them are turned in, which I think would be a high estimate, there will still be so many in circulation that it would not matter. We see the black market in drugs that exists. A similar market would immediately form around these magazines unless the entire supply were confiscated and destroyed and penalties were incredibly draconian. Even so, this would only delay and slow the formation of a black market. Of course, that is assuming that the door to door checks and the draconian punishments don't lead to horrific backlash and bloodshed.

Prohibition never has worked for drugs or alcohol, it has merely created black markets and lots of extra violence. The NFA came to be in 1934. The Tommy gun had been around since 1919. It didn't become a problem until the violence caused by prohibition led to an arms race. Without the lawless spirit of the times that was created by prohibition, we might not have needed that particular act.

Today, most of our violence is connected to the prohibitions on drugs. Now, you and this judge are proposing prohibition on certain types of guns.

The answer is not prohibition in any of these cases. It is, instead, to make alcohol use, drug use, and gun use aggravating factors in crimes. Today, we allow intoxication to mitigate intent in crimes--I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing, etc. We should change this to an aggravating factor: You chose to lose your inhibitions, and were therefore uninhibited from doing x, y, or z. It remains on your head, and we are going to add an extra penalty for the recklessness of not only committing this crime, but doing so in an impaired, and therefore more dangerous state.

As far as guns go, if you commit a crime using a gun, or any other lethal weapon for that matter, you have either killed another human being, tried to, or threatened to do so if they do not do what you say. All three of these should be eligible for whatever the maximum sentence is in that jurisdiction. Note, I don't mean the maximum sentence for armed robbery, as an example; I mean the maximum sentence for the type of murder you would have committed had you killed the person. In the case of armed robbery, I would be hard pressed to think of a scenario where this would not mean the equivalent charge and punishment for first degree murder.

We already have prohibitions on certain types of guns. Why would adding to the black list be so difficult. I disagree with you about the "even if 3/4 of them were turned in" idea. I think that would do the trick and make them much less available to the bad guys.

I'll address your points backwards. First, my point was that even if you took up 3/4 of the banned magazines and guns, that would still leave quite a large supply. Based on the number of AR's sold since the ban expired, and the number of magazines I've seen pass through shops, I'd say the remaining supply would be pretty close to the supply all during the '94 AWB. If my estimate is right, that's not going to make much of a difference as to availability to a determined person.

Second, to respond to your question, we do have "bans" although they are really just restrictions and red tape that you have to go through. These are enough to satisfy those with a big enough pocketbook to afford to pay for the opportunity, for example, to fire a grenade launcher with ATF supervision.

The main reason that there is not that much of a black market for these items is that they have limited utility. Suppressors don't silence most weapons anywhere near as much as on TV, so the advantage is not proportional to the risk. Others do have more use, and you do find black markets for them as witnessed by gangland shootings involving AK-47's that were not bought in a civilian gun store, but smuggled in with drugs.

The black market for these types of weapons is kept down mostly because of the cost of these weapons and their ammo, and because they're not as useful to a criminal as a .22 pistol he can hide in his pants. It is also reduced by the fact that many people have limited interest in these weapons, and they have access to other weapns that better suit their needs and desires.

This is why adding Assault Weapons to the NFA or simply banning them and telling everyone to turn them in will lead to massive non-compliance. People are familiar with them, they like them, they find that the "assault weapons" fit their needs whether for defense or hunting, and there is nothing else that they see as a fitting option to fill the gap if they lose these.

A similar policy was instituted by the (rather Conservative) Howard Government in Australia. In accordance with the proposals of the Prime Minister (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) John Howard, all Australian States adopted measures requiring the licencing and registration of all firearms and the (almost total) prohibition of semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, and the requirement for the demonstration of a legitimate reason (for shotguns and rimfire rifles) or a genuine need (for centerfire rifles and all handguns) for the issuance of a licence. Due to weapons amnesties, there have been few instances of armed insubordination.

On the subject of an "Assault Weapons" Ban,

The primary goal is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.

A better alternative is to ban, not simply features, but all weapons which fire semiautomatically, due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about firearms, and therefore don't have a clue what "semiautomatic" means (they are usually under the impression that such devices are a form of machinegun) the prohibition could be extended to weapons such as this:

http://www.tfsa.co.uk/norinco%20takedown.JPG

Such a ban on semiautomatics would also serve to prohibit most pistols in the U.S. as gun-nut favorites such as the M1911, Glocks, and Berettas, would be banned along with about 70-80 percent of all handguns. Revolvers would remain, although such could conceivably be prohibited if they are double action (and therefore will fire without being cocked until the cylinder is emptied) and such would make most handgun ownership illegal within the United States.

The next step would be to apply similar restrictions to pump action weapons such as the Remington 870, the most popular "civilian weapon" in the world. More Americans have this gun than any other firearm. It would yield a massive impact on the semi-illicit civilian arms market if such was prohibited as an "Assault Weapon".

Tennesseean,

The experiences of other nations dictates that such prohibitive measures would be widely obeyed and quite effective.

I've accused E.N. of being a troll before. The accusation is based on posts like the one above--it reads like a gun nut's parody of an extreme gun banner. (e.g. look at the link he provided as a potential weapon to be included under the assault weapons ban.)

However, whether we take him at his word or not, his post does show many reasons we gun owners maintain that a slippery slope exists for proposals such as "assault weapons" bans. I just want to point out a couple. If you think my statements are off on any of these, tell me and I will offer explanation.

He notes that the collapsible stocks and pistol grips are not dangerous. This is true--collapsible stocks are intended to adjust the weapon to fit the shooter, not to shrink its size for concealment. Pistol grips actually make it MORE awkward to fire from the hip, not easier as Brady and VPC have claimed. Therefore, we see the inclusion of these as a sign of either laughable ignorance or a desire to pick off certain guns that are no more lethal than others which remain available.

He makes a comment about including some revolvers in a semi-automatic ban. Usually, those who propose such bans suggest that all we need for self defense is a revolver rather than a semi-auto pistol. However, as E.N. notes, there is a different mechanism, but little practical difference between most revolvers and a semi-auto. Both fire each time you pull the trigger. Again, this makes us think that either the people proposing banning semi-autos but leaving us revolvers are woefully uninformed about the function of these guns, or they figure that they can sweep double action revolvers into the ban later with no more than an ATF ruling.

To close, I'll note E.N.'s final statement regarding compliance with prohibitions in other countries. The only thing to say to this is that these countries were not America. They didn't have our culture; guns were not as pervasive; and they did not have our independent spirit and history of fighting for our freedom. Do not think that Americans would roll over as easily if either this judge's or E.N.'s proposals were put in place.

I don't necessarily believe that "assault weapons" are especially dangerous in the hands of the ordinary civilian when compared to the obscene lethality that any firearm presents in the hands of the rabblement.

As there is substantial public sentiment for the regulation of "assault weapons" (a mandate to "do something about those black and scary machinegun lookalikes") prohibitions on such can be freely discussed and enacted without fear of any serious political repercussion. Due to the public's ignorance on the meaning of "semiautomatic", "assault weapon" or "military style semiautomatic" the opportunity presents itself for such terms may be applied to many varieties of firearms, in order to catch as many weapons under one ban as possible. My example of a semiautomatic gun (a North Industries copy of a western design) serves as an example of how one law regulating or prohibiting semiautomatic weapons may serve to disarm as many subjects as possible.

That is the goal. Military Style semiautomatics are simply a step in the right direction.

T., I don't think his comment sounds like a parody as much as an logical extreme position. I'm not on board with banning everything, but it certainly is true, the main problem is the availability of handguns.

So where do you stand on this logical extreme position? If I understand previous statements, you want to ban assault weapons (but leave other semi-autos alone), and now you mention being in favor of some kind of restrictions on Handguns.

Ok, I found the post. At least I now know what items you desire. Aaaaand we have a problem just on item 1--you don't license a right. But that's probably a discussion for one of our threads on the 2nd amendment, so I'll refrain from tossing it out here in our debate on AWB's and bans on standard capacity magazines.

This in reference to your assertion that ALL blind people should not be allowed to own guns. Just because one blind person acts stupid with a gun does not mean that ALL blind people will act like that. I know a blind person who has quite a few guns plus swords and a bowie knife. He also is gainfully employed- the unemployment rate of blind people is around 70 per cent so this says something- and I do NOT mean he is employed in a workshop. He is a capable person; he makes chicken coops and gates and if the faucet starts to leak, he'll work on that. So do not presume to think of all blind people as people who sit around and wait for others to rescue them. This is not at all true.

Mikeb, I'll tell you what, you want guns banned, cool. If they enact a gun ban I'm gonna exercise my right as a citizen, I will turn over any gun deemed unlawful as long as it is taken from my hand, on my front porch, by the president of the united states of america. Now, seeing as we don't have one of those, I think I'll keep my guns, thank you very much. Now, go ahead and move to France, where if someone decides to take what you have you can shit your pants, hold up a white flag and run away.

Of course meats have saturated fats lean meats are allowed in paleo diet.Think about it: the Paleo man had a short life expectancy due to a flare.We live here on purpose: We wanted to be close to our families,but without the.